|
representatives vote 2022-11-24#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-25 13:41:09
|
Title
Bills — National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Budget review timing and funding recommendations
Description
<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (8) and (9), as circulated in my name, together:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.38.4) to *disagree* with [amendments (8) and (9)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.35.1) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means they failed.
- #### Rebellion
- Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#rebel) to vote "No" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "Yes".
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-24.35.1):
- > *These amendments enhance budgetary transparency and oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.*
- >
- > *... This amendment will also require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the National Anti-Corruption Commission joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. The amendment provides an additional layer of oversight and transparency over the National Anti-Corruption Commission's budget by requiring the government of the day to respond to a report regarding the adequacy of the NACC's budget.*
- >
- > *... My amendments also require the parliamentary joint committee to review the Anti-Corruption Commission's budget every 12 months. This amendment will ensure regular review of the NACC's budgets and prevent the powerful budget oversight power from going unused.*
- Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd035).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(8) Clause 177, page 144 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,".*
- >
- > *(9) Clause 177, page 144 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert:*
- >
- >> *(2A) If:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation;*
- >>>
- >>> *then:*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision.*
<p class="italic">(8) Clause 177, page 144 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,".</p><p class="italic">(9) Clause 177, page 144 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert:</p><p class="italic">(2A) If:</p><p class="italic">(a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation;</p><p class="italic">then:</p><p class="italic">(c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and</p><p class="italic">(d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision.</p><p>These amendments enhance budgetary transparency and oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Around Australia, anticorruption commissions have been starved of adequate funding. Even the threat of funding cuts could have a silencing effect on anticorruption commissions' capacity to undertake investigations. This is incredibly important as we set up this National Anti-Corruption Commission to last into future. We want to ensure that governments to come absolutely must provide transparency about the funding required to run an effective anticorruption commission</p><p>This amendment will also require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the National Anti-Corruption Commission joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. The amendment provides an additional layer of oversight and transparency over the National Anti-Corruption Commission's budget by requiring the government of the day to respond to a report regarding the adequacy of the NACC's budget. This not only is important for the corruption commission itself but, again, speaks to transparency and what the public needs to see. The public must have the opportunity to see whether the government is following its own oversight committee's recommendation regarding NACC funding and for the government to justify reasons if it chooses not to follow those recommendations.</p><p>My amendments also require the parliamentary joint committee to review the Anti-Corruption Commission's budget every 12 months. This amendment will ensure regular review of the NACC's budgets and prevent the powerful budget oversight power from going unused. Again, I put these amendments forward in good faith for protection into the future. We may not always have a government who wishes to see a powerful anticorruption commission succeed. These amendments will ensure that the review function is used and will give the public and this parliament the chance to scrutinise the government's decisions in relation to funding requests. This is extremely important. We need to make sure that this National Anti-Corruption Commission is fully independent and powerful. Having adequate funding to undertake its work is absolutely central to that. Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Indi be disagreed to. The member for North Sydney was on her feet before the member for Kennedy, so I will give the call to the member for North Sydney—but rest assured, the member for Kennedy will get a fair go as well.</p> <p class="speaker">Kylea Tink</p><p>I wanted to speak to these particular amendments because I think they send a very important message to the Australian community about the visibility of how this National Anti-Corruption Commission is going to be established and about how its integrity in the longer term will be protected and sustained. I would argue in this House that actually one of the key measures of success of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be its longevity and sustainability. We know all too well from the experiences of the last 15 years here in this place how easy it is, with a change of government, for bodies to be set up with the best of intentions and then to subsequently be gutted and become powerless in the face of a new power in politics.</p><p>I think the amendments the member for Indi has moved are infinitely reasonable. These are not things that require us as a parliament to go out of our way. They do not induce any level of discomfort for us. What they ask us to do is to ensure that all of us as parliamentarians remain transparent to the communities that we've been sent here to represent. I would also reflect on the fact that amendments very similar to this were recently introduced into the climate bills for exactly the same reason. Our democracy only becomes stronger when the people who send us here are given a very clear line of sight on the discussions we're having, the advice we're taking and what we are doing once we receive that advice. I commend the member for Indi for these amendments and support them very strongly.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>I'm very aware of the arguments against the initiatives that we are taking here. I saw so many totally innocent people completely destroyed in the Fitzgerald inquiry on police corruption in Queensland. I'll just give you one example. Any policeman that gave evidence against the corrupt police group that the Fitzgerald inquiry was investigating had child pornography put on their computers. There were, I think, something like 32 policemen and people who had done the right thing, who had the courage to do the right thing and who had their lives completely destroyed. They went to jail. Two of them committed suicide, I remember. I don't know how many ended up committing suicide. But they were the good guys. So I can see the inherent dangers here. I can also see the ineffectiveness of what has been done in Queensland. What we're doing here has been done in Queensland, and I'll come back to that.</p><p>But the other side of the argument is that, if we had had in place what the honourable member is putting up here today, would we have got into that situation in Queensland? There was a member of parliament called Ray Jones, an ALP member in Cairns, and he said that there were allegations of cattle thieving and drug running in the police force. He got a lot of publicity out of it, and I subsequently found out that there were two murders associated with this group. I rang him up, and he said, 'I don't know what you're talking about—never heard of it. I don't know what you're talking about.' I said, 'You're the front page of the <i>Cairns Post</i> and the <i>Courier-Mail</i>!' He said, 'I never heard about it,' and he hung up on me. If we'd had a crime and corruption commission, he would not have had to fight that fight, and I would not have been charged. The police had me up on two charges—the corrupt police. I wouldn't have had to go through that trauma if we'd had the means to do something about it, which we did not have in Queensland and which is being put in place here today.</p><p>There's just one other aspect of this that I would like to bring to the attention of the parliament. In Queensland, they have a criminal justice commission. They change the name fairly regularly, but the last time I looked it was called the Criminal Justice Commission, and it's a body similar to what we're setting up here. It was felt that that was inadequate, so they added an integrity commissioner as well. Now, in Queensland there were 17 applications for development, and nothing had happened with them. The front of the <i>Sunday Mail</i>, the second-highest circulation newspaper in Australia, had allegations that the minute a certain person left the ALP's set-up in the government of Queensland to become a lobbyist, all 17 of these proposals went through in the space of 13 months.</p><p>The Queensland Integrity Commissioner was looking at this and got a very intimidating letter from the Premier of Queensland asking about her travel, and the Integrity Commissioner—it was quite excellent, what she did—immediately gave to the Criminal Justice Commission the letter from the Premier, which a lot of people would believe was intimidating. So then what happened was the Premier raided the Integrity Commissioner's office, took the computer which had all the information on what was going on—there was no-one in the office at the time—and sacked the entire staff of the Integrity Commissioner in Queensland. The Integrity Commissioner's contract was up a few weeks after that, so needless to say her commission was not renewed.</p><p>So how effective was the CJC? Utterly ineffective. How effective was the Integrity Commissioner? Utterly ineffective. But I would still contend that if we'd had what is being proposed by the honourable member here today, we would not have had 42 murders— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>These amendments that the member for Indi has put forward deal with budget matters, and I again thank the member for Indi for her amendments and for her constructive engagement on this legislation. The government has committed substantial funding of $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission will have the function of reviewing the commission's budget and finances and reporting to the parliament on whether the commission's resources are sufficient to effectively perform its functions and whether the budget should be increased. The parliamentary joint committee will be able to review the commission's budget at any time, and the commission will be subject to the usual budget estimates process three times each year. The parliamentary joint committee will also be able to request advice from the commission on its budget requirements for future years.</p><p>These arrangements will provide robust, powerful parliamentary oversight of the commission's budget. At some point you have to rely on the ability of the processes of this parliament, like establishing parliamentary oversight committees and having Senate estimates, and the effect that those processes can potentially have to impose political pressure by bringing this to public attention. The government's view is that the further amendments that the member for Indi is proposing would not meaningfully enhance the committee's role, and it doesn't support these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that amendments (8) and (9), moved by the member for Indi, be disagreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|